Friend-or-Pho

That is the story of Arma, excuse if I'm wrong but I didn't realize DayZ was adhering to the Armaverse. In which case you make a good point, but if it doesn't your arguement is completely irrelavent.

I love the idea of adding more Soviet era/Modern Russian weapons. They would after-all be very abundant in an eastern European country. The biggest problem with some of the weapons listed would be the need to model entirely new weapons. A good starting point would be to add Russian/Czech weapons that already exist within Arma 2/OA. -AK-47 (though I'd prefer it remained as the AKM since you can adjust zeroing) -AK-74 and AKS-74u (they are already in-game but could be made less rare) -RPK-74 -AK-107 possibly with any number of attachments Kobra, PSO, or GP-25 -Saiga 12k -VSS Vintorez -PKM As far as guns from OA that would work: -SA-61 Scorpian -Silenced Makarov (I think this is also available in Arma 2) -AKS with folding stock (could potentially take less backpack space) -Sa-58 with scopes and what-not could be added as a high-end assault rifle. Just for the hell of it, the DSHKm or KORD could be added. All of the required parts to set one up, (tripod, gun, and ammo) would be EXTREMELY rare (and would require 2 people to carry). And Frodevil, the Winchester 1866 was chambered for .44 rimfires (in reality) not 12 gauge slugs. The earliest repeating shotgun that Winchester manufactured was the 1887. I assume that having the gun use the existing Arma 2 shotgun ammunition mechanics was much easier, thus leading to this comfusion.

I agree bandits are disgusting... wait, are you asking about disguises? Rocket, keep up the good work. I look forward to this patch when it is ready. -Devo damn you!

I would love this idea if 3 factors were taken into account. 1. Have the location of the carrier be randomized in the same way as crashed helis. Not only would this make it harder to find, but you would have to weigh the risk or either finding it or running out of gas in the ocean. 2. Have the carrier spawn far enough off shore that only a well coordinated group with access to a chopper or boat can even hope of getting to it. 3. Have an appropriate number of zombies on-board. The risk/reward should be much higher than going to an airfield.

At the very least you should be able to recombine DMR mags into FAL mags the same way you can with .45acp and 1911 mags. It certainly wouldn't make any less sense than the AS50 taking M107 mags, or the PDW using every type of 9x19mm mag.

There are already server side options that the devs have over-ridden, so the way I see it is if they thought 3rd person and corsshairs didn't belong they'd simply force servers to disable them or be blacklisted. IMO this falls squarely in the realm of server host preference. There is still the option to play entirely on servers that disable these features. Now I am jumping in without reading all 8 pages, but using 3rd person the way it was intended is not an exploit. If I have missed an example of an exploit, such as the camera clipping through objects allowing you to see through things you shouldn't, then I say go ahead and fix that. However that would most likely be BIS' problem. But being against 3rd person all together is simply a matter of taste.

Mmmm bear traps. Let the high-loot spawn bear-trap trolling commence! This sounds much more fun than deploying hedgehogs at the bottoms of ladders.

Have you ever fired either gun, they aggro every zombie for a mile. What exactly is the "mood" of the mod? One could just as easily say all military-grade weapons don't belong in-game. But there was clearly a massive military presence during the outbreak, and as a result there are lots of high-end weapons available. Besides the AS50 and M107 are very rare, I don't see any reason why these weapons in specific should be removed. I've suggested before that instead of removing or reducing the number of military weapons, they should be made harder to find. Currently finding a crashed chopper that isn't looted requires a ton of luck. Perhaps finding all high-end weapons should have the same element of luck. This seems like the best options IMO, because it makes sense for military weapons to be in-game, but currently they are very easy to get a hold of.

Just for the sake of argument, how far exactly would players be allowed to go? Would I die if I take 1 step north from Pobeda Dam? What exactly would be considered the boundaries? The mod is advertised as 255 km^2, and this certainly isn't the case if players are limited to populated areas only (it would be ~130 km^2). Would there be a 1 or 2 kilometer area beyond the edge of the map that people can still enter? What exactly should be considered the "edge" of the map? I still don't know why you insist avoiding other players by going "outside" the map is so bad. It is no less valid than being a group player or murderer. It is a realistic survival method and forcing players to stay within unrealistic confines limits survival. Do you want people around cities simply so you can kill them? If so you should get over it.

I agree completely, and I've suggested possible coop elements before. I was simply making a case against whether or not it is "punishing" lone-wolves.

Please quote Rocket saying that the borders of the map are not meant to be included. I know he has said that staying in the debug area is considered an exploit, but that is completely different. I avoid other survivors so there isn't a chance for us to have to shoot at each other, that has nothing to do with playing multiplayer or not. Again, why should I have to play where you want me to? Judging from your sig, you like to kill people, so why is it that I should be forced to make it easy for you to kill me?

While I like the idea of choosing a class, in order to better develop who your character is as a person, I don't think it should change spawn rates. At the most choosing a class should effect how well you perform at certain tasks, but not change whether or not you find a gun/medical supplies. This isn't something I have strong feelings about one way ot the other, but this is a very well thought out and communicated suggestion.

So why is it that everyone should be forced to play near other players? In a real apocolyptic scenario there would be plenty of people who try to survive off the grid. This is no less valid than any other survival tactic used in-game. If I don't want to bother with other survivors why should I? I have yet to see a good arguement against going "off-map" other than people claiming it is cheating. Besides, vehicles now despawn after a period of time if they go un-used. So what exactly is wrong with allowing people to go head to the hills?

With the latest changes including recombining ammo types, this could actually be possible. For example, after you empty a magazine you will then have an empty mag in your inventory. You could then possibly stumble across a box of rounds, right click on your empty mags, and fill them (in the same way waterbottles work). This is after-all assuming that this is possible, but it seems likely.

I see nothing at all wrong with going off the map or hoarding tents. It is no worse than killing other players or looting everything. However I do like the recent change to vehicle spawns. It isn't as if going off the map is an exploit, since anyone can simply walk out there. I don't understand why this is such an issue when many other suggestions get people labeled as care-bears. If a player or group of survivors wish to exist off the map so they don't have to come into contact with trigger happy fools, why the hell should they be punished?

Nice! Happy about the toolbelt options now.

The problem with allowing players to choose where they spawn is, everyone would spawn in high-loot-yield town OR choose to spawn in any town near the NW airfield. For me this isn't a high priority, but I can understand why people want to spawn near friends. Honestly though, after getting my friends used to the game we don't have a problem meeting up.

Long term isolation + high stress environments lead to a lot more than depression. Astronauts are a perfect example of the mental stresses that both isolation and a stressful workload can produce. There was the incident with Skylab, where the crew essentially mutanied against mission control's orders, and that was brought on by many of these factors. The psychological effects are far more than being sad, and predicting the way that someone reacts to those stressors takes hours of observation performed by a liscensed psychologist. To properly implement a psychological simulation would take an incredible amount of work or risk being an over-simplification. Then it would still assume every player would react the same way. There is no way to know with certainty how an individual will react to such a situation (short of being placed in a trial experiment). I think this sort of mechanic is best left to the space between chair and keyboard.

I love this idea, eating nothing but red meat is going to give our characters gout in no time. I am all for the idea of crops taking months to mature. It would give players a reason to attempt to settle down and create societies. At the very least there should be more food gathering beyond canned food and steak.

If and only if, the in-game VOIP was even remotely close to the sound quality of TS3 would I like this. I agree very much with the heart of what you are suggesting. However the in-game Direct Chat is crap.

I love almost everything I've read here. There are 2 things however that I don't like, NPCs and the "burning zombie". Part of the brilliance of DayZ is that the game is a completely player driven experience. Anything and everything you can imagine is possible (allowing the engine is capable). Having towns be guarded by NPCs interferes with that. If players want the benefits that come with permanent structures, it is my personal belief that they put in the work guarding it themselves. Would that make it a lot harder? Yes, but why should it be easy. If players really want their forts to be safe, they should need to bring in new players and as a result begin to have to trust new players. Leaving it in the player's hands would force people to either use teamwork or have lower ambitions. As far as stronger Zombies, I think they are necessary, but taking 20 AK rounds or 3 to head is excessive. There could be an overhaul on how zombies work that will make them more challanging across the board. If zombies had better hearing, ie being able to hear a character who is out of breath, and combined that with being stronger, taking slightly more shots to the chest to kill, we might not need unique uber zeds.

I think your suggestion about sickness would be an improvement. However there should be several different kinds of sickness players can suffer from, each with thier own symptoms (fever vs cold sweats, nausea or fatigue). Another aspect that hasn't been accounted for is, will there be snow/colder weather during real-world winter? Will/should there be an in-game "flu season"? For melee weapons, what you suggest is pretty much how the zombie attack currently works. So I don't see why it shouldn't be available to players. Cannabilism is do-able too. It shouldn't however offer any more or any less nutritional benefits than other kinds of meat. But there are health problems related to long-term cannabilism, such as exposure to human-specific pathogens/parasites. I don't think cannabilism is necessary but it should be considered just as valid a survival tactic as murder. Perhaps something more useful would be the ability to cut off someone's arm and throw it to distract the zombies.

I don't see how these suggestions would encourage coop play or deter PvP. Seeing a dead player already tells you everything you need to know, there is someone here and they probably have a bigger gun than I do. The ability to lower your gun is already available, at least for primary weapons. I do think there should be such an option for pistols, such as holstering. Again though, simply lowering you gun isn't going to stop someone from killing you if they really want to. It may be useful for those occasions when you meet a potentially "friendly" survivor. Detecting biomes on a player wouldn't really do much in the way of coop/PvP, but I still find it an interesting idea. However I'm still not sure about the practical application of this mechanic. Practically every player spends time traipsing through the woods. Though Rocket does have a 20 words or less thread about a similar idea, where you can potentially have a "gut feeling" the longer you are around a player with low humanity.